From the case studies it becomes clear that within the Danube Region, Central Europe is more actively engaged in CBC than South Eastern Europe. This is perhaps less surprising given that the Visegrad (or V4) States (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary) and Slovenia joined the European Union (EU) already in 2004. Romania and Bulgaria joined in 2007, Croatia in 2013. Serbia and Montenegro received candidate status a few years ago and Bosnia and Herzegovina is a potential candidate (Europa.eu 2015), but the opportunities of these countries remain far more limited: their limited access to external (EU) resources as well as co-financing on their own, coupled with a recent difficult history explains this overall state of affairs. Nevertheless, the closer we look at the picture the more complex it is. Table 1 summarises the position of the fourteen cross-border regions (CBRs) in terms of the overall intensity of cooperation. The authors of this chapter created the table’s categorisation. It was primarily based on the 14 case studies, but the authors also double-checked information on the continuity of projects, maintenance of webpages, news portals, and so on. We also contacted several actors of CBRs as well as authors of the case studies for specifications etc.
Table 1: Overall intensity of cooperation in 14 CBRs of the Danube region
Source: authors’ compilation
The compilation of Table 1 needs further explanation. As already mentioned, the project was mostly interested in best practices, which the authors of the case studies were requested to concentrate on. Such projects turned out to strongly vary in both quantity and quality, even if all 14 CBRs had made at least some achievements. Given that one of the main critiques of subsidised CBC has been that cooperation often tends to discontinue after sources dry out, we were particularly impressed by civilian engagements (cf. Scott & Laine 2012) and initiatives that carried on after (external) funding has ended. At the same time, a number of active projects and initiatives were found that never received any EU funds, a few even no external sources at all.
Which aspects are then among the most important behind the level of intensity in CBRs? We now turn to a number of different factors that may be relevant.
The most intensive
2.1 Ethnic/linguistic ties
It is clear from the case studies that a shared ethnicity and/or linguistic homogeneity tend to strengthen the intensity of cooperation. This is evidenced by the two cases along the Slovak-Hungarian border, where both sides have an ethnic Slovak-Hungarian majority and contacts are intense with and without external support. Another case in point is the Prut river area, where deep cooperation has been achieved between Romanian and Moldovan researchers and decision-makers alike centred on the (environmental) management of the river. We can mention two cases where the languages used in the CBR are not identical but rather close, with the regional dialects being even more similar. One of them is the Tourism Zone Haloze-Zagorje (TZHZ), where the local dialect on the Croatian side is more similar to the neighbour-ring Slovenian language than is standard Croatian. The other case is Tritia, where differences between standard Czech, Slovak, and Polish are mitigated by the local Silesian dialects of these same languages. Yet even here, cooperation between the Czech and Slovak sides (where the languages are even more similar) is more intensive2 than with the Polish one.
Importantly, however, the above does not mean that the reverse is true – i.e. that a lack of a common ethnicity or language necessarily translates into weaker CBC. As the intensive cooperation in the Hungarian-Serbian-Romanian DKMT Euroregion and the Romanian-Bulgarian Euroregion Danubius Association (EDA) testify, a shared language or ethnicity is no prerequisite for successful CBC. At the same time, despite their very similar languages in the Western Balkans neither the Drina Euroregion nor the partnership between Subotica and Osijek is a case of an intensive CBR. Interestingly, the latter cooperation is explicitly based on maintaining contacts between the Croatian minority from Vojvodina and its Croatian
“motherland” (see the relevant case study in this volume), but the low level of achievements can of course be attributed to other factors.
In sum, a common language and/or ethnicity appears to make CBC easier to achieve but is of course no sufficient explanatory factor on its own. Hence, we now turn to other aspects with a potential of explaining CBC intensity.
2 Of course, this is most likely also related to the shared history of these two countries.
2.2 Historical unity/shared landscape
Given that a shared ethnicity and language proved to be important for the intensity of CBC, another and partly related aspect is to consider whether CBRs that were historically part of the same political entities have cooperated more intensively in the more recent past.
Most of the borders concerned in the case studies were drawn in the peace treaties following the First and/or the Second World War, and have been stable ever since. However, there are a few exceptions. Czechoslovakia broke up in 1992-1993 and Yugoslavia (gradually) between the years 1991-2006. CBC in the former case is rather intensive and smooth. This is less the case between the former Yugoslav republics, with the Serbian-Bosnian border even remaining questioned by parts of the local population that thus remains puzzled by the very concept of CBC, as the case study on the Drina euroregion reports. Arguably, locals here see formal cooperation as strengthening the status quo: after all CBC is presumed on the very existence of stable – i.e. uncontested – borders (O’Dowd & al 1995, Terlouw 2008: 106). Thus the nature of the break-up – i.e. whether the process was peaceful or not – seems to explain CBC intensity more than the actual age of the state border.
It is also worth considering whether a similar landscape or a geographical structure tends to motivate CBC. This point is raised by earlier observations that territorial imbalances tend to stimulate such contacts, such as between so-called divided cities (Stokłosa 2003) or regions where a larger city is bordering a sparsely populated space as in the case of Szczecin (Balogh 2014). There are some recognisable patterns in the cases from the Danube Region here dealt with.
Several among the most intensive border regions have their hypothetical – and increasingly empirical – central places (Christaller 1966) on the other side of the border: indeed, local inhabitants from the Ister-Granum, EDA, and the Prut regions have been developing more and more contacts with Esztergom, Budapest, Bucharest, and Iași, respectively. The Pons Danubii EGTC is not least based on the cooperation between the two sides of the divided city of Komárom.
On the other hand, most of the remaining and less intensive CBRs are areas with relatively few potential complementarities. In these cases the different sides tend to have a relatively similar geographical structure, i.e. each endowed with a medium-sized city (e.g. DKMT), sometimes even not very close to the border (e.g. Osijek-Subotica or Pécs-Osijek). Similarly, other cases consist of typical peripheral areas with a rural character with no central places that could function as a “natural” meeting point (e.g. Šumava-BW/UI-M or the Drina Euroregion). The two cases of the relatively intensively cooperating nature parks (TZHZ and Őrség-Goričko) are exceptions here as these are exclusively targeted at the joint work of such areas. In sum, in terms of geographical structures it is differences rather than similarities that appear as a motivating factor for intensive CBC.
2.3 Economy/labour market
There has been some debate whether economic differences hinder (Grix & Houžvička 2002) or rather drive (Balogh 2014) CBC. Large inequalities may indeed be a barrier as both sides need at least some resources for cooperation. In the case of the EU and its direct vicinity this problem is significantly alleviated by the various funding channels on the community level.
But especially in East Central Europe, the opportunity to use the latter occasionally remains challenged by the limited possibilities of self- or pre-financing by small, impoverished border municipalities and regions. Yet overall, very similar economies will motivate few people to cross the border.
In the Danube region, the level of economic development is rather similar between adjacent countries. Where this is less the case, we see the emergence of for instance the development of a bilateral vocal training of Czech craftspeople partly working in Bavaria (see the relevant case study in this volume). While Slovakia and Hungary have a very similar economic development, pressing unemployment in southern Slovakia combined with many locals’
knowledge of Hungarian language push them to daily commute across the border for work.
But overall, economic differences explain CBC intensity only in a few cases in the Danube Region (in fact, more borderlanders move or commute for work further west3).
2.4 Level of institutionalisation
It has earlier been suggested that the level of institutionalisation is an important factor for explaining the intensity of cross-border cooperation (Sohn & al 2009). Table 2 categorises the fourteen CBRs here dealt with in terms of what type of institution they are currently operating under. Despite its shortcomings, it is assumed that the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) represents the most advanced form of institutionalised CBC (Ţoca &
Popovici 2010), gradually followed by euroregions, cross-border nature parks/tourism zones, and twin-cities.
Table 2 shows a number of overlaps with Table 1, with three of the most intensive CBRs being EGTCs. One of the two twin-city collaborations is among the least intensive CBRs and the more intensive one has recently been forming an EGTC. There are exceptions, of course. While TZHZ for instance „only” has the status of a cross-border tourism zone, cooperation there appears to be far more intensive than in a number of euroregions, e.g. Drina or EDDS. Nevertheless, the above suggests that there is a considerable correlation between CBC intensity and the level of institutionalisation.
3 In southern Slovakia for instance, employees in health- and elderly care from as far as Tornal’a are weekly commuting by bus to work in Austria on an organised basis.
Table 2: The form of institutionalisation of the 14 CBRs
EGTC Euroregion4 Nature park /tourism zone Twin-cities
Ister-Granum
It can be assumed that CBRs get more mature as they are gaining more experiences. Table 3 presents the fourteen CBRs based on their level of intensity (cf. Table 1), together with their year of establishment. Note that some CBRs were operating under a different – lower – level of institutionalisation in the past, which is indicated in these cases.
Table 3: The intensity of cooperation in CBRs and their year of establishment
Intensive Intensive but specialised Mixed level of intensity Low intensity
DKMT 1997 intensive collaborations were formalised at least twelve years ago, while all except one less intensive CBRs are eight years old or younger. The number of cases (14) is of course too low to make general statements, but the pattern is still recognisable in the CBRs of the Danube
4 Where the CBR involves more than one collaboration the number of euroregions is indicated in parentheses.
5 The Croatian sections of this CBR could not be parts of this EGTC as Croatia can only use this legal tool as of June 2015 (i.e. after the case study came in). Since then, however, several settlements have joined Pannon EGTC through this tool.
region. Generally speaking, then, the length of cooperation appears to be a significant factor for CBC intensity.
2.6 Number of countries involved
Another factor that might be relevant is the number of states from which sub-national units are involved in CBC. The assumption can be made that the more countries are involved, the more difficult it gets to coordinate cooperation. Relatedly, where more than two countries are involved, a third or even a fourth country is invited to join as a sort of counterbalance to a potentially dominating side, as was initially the case in the Euroregion Pomerania (Balogh 2014: 30-31).
There are signs that also in the Danube Region, two sides can cooperate more intensely than three or four (although the reasons have not been elaborated upon as deeply as in the above-cited larger study on the Euroregion Pomerania). Three of the five most intensive CBRs are bilateral, and one of the two trilateral ones, Tritia, is as mentioned above dominated by two sides. There is only one exception here, with the trilateral DKMT Euroregion considered as a truly three-sided cooperation.
In the category of “mixed level of intensity CBRs” the Őrség-Goričko nature park cooperation – which is sometimes trilateral and includes the Austrian side – is more active between the Slovenian and Hungarian parts. In the Prut region, the two trilateral CBRs are less intensive than the bilateral one. The Šumava-Bayerischer Wald/Unterer Inn-Mühlviertel euroregion appears to be particularly torn between the different interests of the three sides.
The least intensive CBRs then include the four-sided Drina euroregion and the trilateral EDDS cooperation. True, the bilateral collaboration of Osijek-Subotica and Pécs-Osijek also belong to the less intensive ones, but/even though these are restricted to cities. In sum, the number of „national“ partners rather clearly affects the intensity of CBC.
2.7 The size of CBRs
A related aspect to the number of countries involved is the territorial extent of the cooperating entities in question. On the one hand, it can be assumed that the larger the CBR’s territory is the more challenging it gets to coordinate collaboration. On the other hand, a larger area involves more potentially active partners, thereby securing the maintenance – or even very existence – of the cooperation.
In the 14 cases of the Danube Region the pattern seems to strengthen the first assumption.
Two of the three least intensive and two of the three modestly intensive CBRs have an outspokenly large territory where one or two sides – and even a few places within these – dominate the cooperation. As mentioned above, in some cases a third partner is involved for
a particular reason. Based on the Pécs-Osijek cooperation, the Pannon EGTC for instance included the Slovenian side to be able to form an EGTC, a legal form that the Croatian side until recently could not adopt (see footnote above). As a result, this EGTC includes half of Transdanubia i.e. western Hungary. While not included in the 14 cases here, another good example of an oversized CBR is the Carpathian Euroregion (parts of which now forming the Via Carpatia EGTC), stretching all the way from Szolnok in the west to Botoșani in the east. At the other end of the scale, four of the five most intensive CBRs are small or medium-sized. In sum, the territorial extent of the cooperating area matters.
2.8 The fields of cooperation
Finally, it is worth considering whether the nature of the targeted field of CBC is important for the intensity of cooperation. Are some fields of society or the economy apparently easier to bring about cooperation in? The case studies do not show any clear pattern. For instance, there appears no clear correlation between the intensity of cooperation and whether so-called ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ issues are dealt with.
Following this analysis of several levels of comparison between regions cooperating across borders, attention is turned to the issue of CBC best practices that can function as incentive and motivation for other regions and cross-border cooperation in general. Specifically, individual best practices are identified in the field of cross-border interaction and are briefly introduced.